Hi I’m an atheist myself but there is something I’ve been thinking about.
I’d like to start with this Steven Weinberg quote:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
This seems reasonable, but since atheists rely on reason it might give way to some “evil” (you can argue what evil really means) things in the future.
We will probably have overpopulation in the future. Based on reason people might state it is better to kill off people that aren’t necessary, for example mentally disabled, criminals, etc. Mind you, I don’t like this one bit, but I’m just trying to comprehend what an age based on reason and on reason alone might cause.
Of course we also have our morals, but morals shift and change as time goes on. Maybe in the future, euthanizing these people would seem the moral thing to do.
So maybe atheism also can lead to good people doing bad things, because they see reason as the greater good.
Or maybe I should not ask myself this question because when morals change, they do so for a reason. In an overpopulated world, choosing to let everyone live with might not even be the better way we out and might even be worse. So, I don’t know.
What is you thought on this. Can’t atheism also lead to “evil”, by following reason? Maybe someday, atheists too will have an ideology based on reason. And ideologies are often dangerous.
Posted: September 22nd 2010
Eric_PK
I think the point of the quote is not about individuals but about groups.
To get good people to do evil things you need a way to convince them that the evil thing is okay, which generally means making the people you are doing it to less important/valuable/human than those in our group.
Religion is one way to do that, nationalism is another.
Or, to put it another way, you hear people assert that it’s okay to kill others because they are infidels/communists/abortionists – those are us/vs them arguments.
You don’t hear people assert that this is okay because God doesn’t exist. At least not effectively.
Posted: September 27th 2010
George Locke
I can imagine that an “age of reason” might change our values, but who could predict the specific changes? I don’t see that religion would be much better equipped to handle overpopulation. Consider that (voluntary) family planning is an effective strategy against overpopulation. Certain religions seem to argue that “family planning” will send you “straight to hell”. So doing away with those religions would probably be helpful in responding to an overpopulation crisis.
Anyway, there are lots of beliefs that can lead well-meaning people to commit acts of “evil”. This is what happens when people have to choose between two values in conflict (for example trade-offs between safety and liberty) and they make the wrong decision. Religion can obfuscate the issue by overemphasizing one value and neglecting another, but I would point the finger at faith more broadly (as to include faith in the state or in the free market or what have you).
Posted: September 22nd 2010
bitbutter www
The Weinberg quote is a platitude. I cringe when I hear people quoting it approvingly.
The passage uses ambiguous terms. What could the phrase 'evil person’ mean? If this phrase is meaningful, then to me it seems that an evil person must be a person who acts in an evil way. What does it mean to act in an evil way? For the sake of a working definition let’s say it means to profoundly, and deliberately, hurt the well being of others, for narrow ('non-enlightened’) self interest.
So a religious believer may do evil by making a child afraid of hell, even though they are a 'good person’ (ie. they don’t believe that they are hurting the well being of another person). So this is how religious belief can cause a good person to 'do evil’.
But religion is just one kind of belief that can motivate well-meaning people to act in ways that end up hurting others. There are many categories of belief where the same thing happens. For instance social planning projects have been backed by people who believed that they would be an engine for positive change, but turned out to do much more harm than good (eg. state socialism).
So it’s not true that “for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”. Because religious belief is not the only kind of belief that plays this role.
The quote also neglects the reality that religious belief can also prevent 'evil people’ from doing 'evil deeds’. If you believe an all-powerful judge is watching you, you’re less likely to agress cheat or steal, ceteris paribus.
The quote seems to imply two claims:
- Only religious belief can cause well-meaning people to harm others.
- Religious belief cannot prevent people from harming others.
Both claims turn out to be false.
See also: does it really take religion for a good person to do evil
Posted: September 22nd 2010